Jump to content

BurgaFlippinMan

Members
  • Posts

    4,428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BurgaFlippinMan

  1. I not too happy about that cameo near the end however, as it works now but will probably be seen negatively after some time has passed.

    All things considered, I think it was a wise call to have the scene. Any regeneration is going to be the first regeneration for many viewers, and with Capaldi being such a big change from any of the Nu-Who Doctors, I can completely understand why they would want to reassure the younger viewers out there that the show is in good hands.

  2. Did you?

    What parts are boring to you?

    If I see it again, I'll tell you..

    But I mentioned something in my previous post.

    I just thought Jaws 2 was a bit tighter in action and Jaws dragged a bit until we get there...

    Its been a while since I've seen Jaws 2 but what I remember is it had more action but it really dragged quite a bit to get there.

  3. Cuaron's a great director but without his roller coaster thriller 12 Years would have swept.

    Not exactly sure what you're driving at here. Without one film, a different one would have done better? Strange argument, wouldn't you say?

    Not its typical Oscar politics.

    But 12 years has only lost 2 Oscars to Gravity in the categories both are nominated in (with 1 to go).

  4. You can root for Dexter because he literally only murders men who have already murdered multiple other men, and then escaped the justice system. You don't root for Walter White. The whole point of the show is that they introduce a likable character that you root for originally, then as the show goes on you realize he in the villain, and you root for his innocent family members to be free of him. As for GOT, the only characters you can really root for at this point are Arya and Daenerys, and I'd hardly call either of them murderers.

    Why can't I root for Jon Snow? Or Tywin Lannister? Whats wrong with rooting for the delicious bad guy? Or, whats wrong with just watching a show for its entertaining and fascinating characters and not bothering about rooting for anyone?

  5. Perhaps he wanted so much for Watson and Mary to work out that he made a.....human error.


    That is a real obvious link that Sherlock seemed to have missed.

    During the wedding, while bonding with Janine, was he already trying to gain access to Magnussen? If he did, how did the telegram not raise any suspicions for him?

    This might be the first time the viewer had suspicions that Sherlock did not have. But there is nothing in either episode to conclude that he had any knowledge or suspicion about Mary having some involvement with CAM.

  6. I like James Bond but I'm not sure I'll like the last ones (since I generally don't like the recent film output in action/fantasy/sci-fi genres which are filled with CGI)

    The Craig movies are very lean on CGI, at least obvious CGI, and prefer a more back to basics approach after Brosnan's last Bond, Die Another Day, was a mess full of terrible computer effects. They are much more akin to the Connery films, which are more character pieces with intimate moments, and sparse on big overblown action sequences. I don't know if I'd recommend spending $100 to find out, but maybe check one of the Craig films out on tv and see if they're your cup of tea.

    3 out of 5 Connery films were definitely NOT sparse on big overblown action sequences.

    Compare You Only Live Twice to Tomorrow Never Dies or Die Another Day.

    The frequency of action is shocking, though considering how much character stuff they cut out of Quantum of Solace, I'd reckon its probably the worst offender in the series.

    Except it doesn't work like that when you compare films across decades. If you do that, even Raiders of the Lost Ark is geriatric.

  7. I like James Bond but I'm not sure I'll like the last ones (since I generally don't like the recent film output in action/fantasy/sci-fi genres which are filled with CGI)

    The Craig movies are very lean on CGI, at least obvious CGI, and prefer a more back to basics approach after Brosnan's last Bond, Die Another Day, was a mess full of terrible computer effects. They are much more akin to the Connery films, which are more character pieces with intimate moments, and sparse on big overblown action sequences. I don't know if I'd recommend spending $100 to find out, but maybe check one of the Craig films out on tv and see if they're your cup of tea.

    3 out of 5 Connery films were definitely NOT sparse on big overblown action sequences.

  8. How is that devil imagery?

    And if it is, that would be a clue for the viewer, but NOT Sherlock, so it could be a red herring.

    My main thing is that she figured out the skip code signifying John was kidnapped. That came out of no where?

    But is this a plot against Sherlock, or John? She was dating John 6 months before Sherlock came back!

    When we get a Sherlock deducto-cloud on her, one of the words is "liar". So Sherlock knows something.

    Of course, she did lie about liking John's mustache.

  9. I have slightly mixed feelings about this one. Mainly because of the extremely far fetched stabbings. I may be wrong, but I don't believe in the powers of a tight belt. That said, everything else was a lot of fun....I just wish the actual murder attempts wasnt so hokey.

  10. I think that he unequivocally improved The Fellowship of the Ring with its extension, on balance improved The Two Towers, and on balance diminished The Return of the King.

    I prefer the theatrical cut of FotR. In general I prefer the theatrical cuts of each film.

    I agree with both statements. I do wish the Lothlorien gifts scene was left in the theatrical edition though. For TTT and ROTK, the EEs do nothing but extend the already boring parts for me.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.